The Constitution was written to restrain the government. No amendment is more important for this purpose than the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment was written so the power could be kept with the citizenry in the face of a tyrannical government. It was well understood the Constitution acknowledged certain rights that could not be limited by government.

Senator Dianne Feinstein has made it clear she does not believe in the Constitution or the inalienable rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. She is actively working to destroy the 2nd amendment with her 2013 assault weapons ban. For this reason we the people of the united States petition for her to be tried in Federal Court for treason to the Constitution.

Oh, for Pete’s sake. This petition page at the White House website just gets more and more ridiculous. Maybe it’s time to admit it’s an experiment that’s not working? (Unless the purpose is to show how crazy the right wing base can be, in which case it’s working very well.)

To dub discussion of possible legislation 'treason' (without said legislation even having been introduced yet) is blatant hate and fear mongering. It serves no other purpose. This is more of the same "THE OTHER SIDE IS EVIL!!1" shlock that has so dreadfully paralyzed the Congress. It is evil and must end.

By this rationale, everyone who called on the video game makers, Hollywood, and others to stop making games depicting gun violence are also committing treason in crushing the First Amendment. Yes Wayne, that means you've committed treason. /wingnut logic as applied.

Still, the whole point of this is to silence debate about the subject of gun control. It's meant to intimidate and cajole others to stop any kind of action on the proliferation of firearms. It's meant to hit at the First Amendment rights to question policy choices and submit alternatives (even if the alternatives have no chance of ever being enacted into law). I find the whole exercise to be anti-Democratic.

This just shows that 'direct democracy' favours the extremes of the political discourse. Essentially it limits the government to doing one of only two things; bad and good. Which of course depends entirely on your point of view.

As my favourite writer puts it, "The vote is the final punctuation of the democratic sentence." Petitions and referendums can only add an exclamation mark, never a question mark, a period or a careful comma.

In short petitions and referendums favour ideologues. Napoleon used referenda to add an appearance of democracy to his empire. Hitler gained more power in two referenda than any absolute monarch.

By this rationale, everyone who called on the video game makers, Hollywood, and others to stop making games depicting gun violence are also committing treason in crushing the First Amendment. Yes Wayne, that means you've committed treason. /wingnut logic as applied.

Still, the whole point of this is to silence debate about the subject of gun control. It's meant to intimidate and cajole others to stop any kind of action on the proliferation of firearms. It's meant to hit at the First Amendment rights to question policy choices and submit alternatives (even if the alternatives have no chance of ever being enacted into law). I find the whole exercise to be anti-Democratic.

WE HAVE TO KILL THE 1ST AMENDMENT TO SAVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT. ANYTHING ELSE IS TREASON!!!

Everyone who signs that petition should be declared "poorly regulated", as the phrase was understood in the 18th century, and forbidden from owning arms as per the very clear text of the Second Amendment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

This is exactly why I don't take any solace in Moar Guns. The nuts evangelizing this mouth breathing idiocy are also the gun fetishists awaiting any excuse to start shooting at liberals, minorities, Muslims, or atheists.

This is exactly why I don't take any solace in Moar Guns. The nuts evangelizing this mouth breathing idiocy are also the gun fetishists awaiting any excuse to start shooting at liberals, minorities, Muslims, or atheists.

It's as if they want some apocalypse, any apocalypse, to happen.

I fear that the only thing that will bring about any restriction of assault weapons in this country will be the sort of scene you describe: following a major natural and/or man-made disaster which paralyzes untilities and public services over a large area, we could well see very poorly regulated militias out gunning down anyone they considered suspicious (i.e. dark-skinned).

I fear that the only thing that will bring about any restriction of assault weapons in this country will be the sort of scene you describe: following a major natural and/or man-made disaster which paralyzes untilities and public services over a large area, we could well see very poorly regulated militias out gunning down anyone they considered suspicious (i.e. dark-skinned).

Or, anybody suspected of known to be 'liberal.' Once you've made the intellectual justification for something like race, religion or political view justifications will follow.

This is exactly why I don't take any solace in Moar Guns. The nuts evangelizing this mouth breathing idiocy are also the gun fetishists awaiting any excuse to start shooting at liberals, minorities, Muslims, or atheists.

It's as if they want some apocalypse, any apocalypse, to happen.

Hell, there's been shootings over loud music, wearing a hoody, over fast-food service, and that's just recently.

To a limited extent, but consider the possibility of something that dwarfs Katrina, and one that hits without any forewarning...it could get very, very ugly and we will see exactly what it means to have that many weapons in the hands of that many unstable people.

I'd love it if the Troller in Chief picked one of these dudes at random and invited him to the White House to explain his rationale in person. For the lolz, see.

I remember an episode of the West Wing in which periodically the staff had to meet with whatever crazies had a proposal they wanted to pitch to the White House, like a globe with the South Pole on top.

Guns are 10% of the weapons take.
Keep in mind the Sullivan act is 101 years old. That's the law that banned lots of weapons on NYC. Murder is down this year? I'd be a little careful about that correlation.

Guns are 10% of the weapons take.
Keep in mind the Sullivan act is 101 years old. That's the law that banned lots of weapons on NYC. Murder is down this year? I'd be a little careful about that correlation.

I read the whole thing. The gun fetishists like to make the charge that gun laws don't work and imply they increase gun violence. This shows the contrary.

The right wing are starting to remind me of the radicals from the 60's, all emotionalism, theater, posturing... They're like rowdies at a rally, not serious people...

Which is odd. The kids in the 60's were like that because they were young, out of power, not experienced, feeling helpless, more interested in looking cool than accomplishing anything (so they could get laid) ...

Note that a lot of the above is missing from the right wing nuts.

One of the (usually abused) moderates at PJMedia noticed the abuse the other day and said something like "Everyone is a radical now. We're all following Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'"

To a limited extent, but consider the possibility of something that dwarfs Katrina, and one that hits without any forewarning...it could get very, very ugly and we will see exactly what it means to have that many weapons in the hands of that many unstable people.

And it assumes that order would be restored afterwards. If an especially nasty racial conflict broke out that way (it could happen via attacks by any group upon another, it would'd have to be white attacking black), there'd likely be a number of white victims as well and the bad blood might be enough as to be unquellable. Situations like that have engulfed even calm regions in bloodbath, often because once enough damage is done, the side that's done it feels that in order to preclude revenge attacks they have to fully ethnically cleanse the area.

I remember an episode of the West Wing in which periodically the staff had to meet with whatever crazies had a proposal they wanted to pitch to the White House, like a globe with the South Pole on top.

Guns are 10% of the weapons take.
Keep in mind the Sullivan act is 101 years old. That's the law that banned lots of weapons on NYC. Murder is down this year? I'd be a little careful about that correlation.

Which is odd. The kids in the 60's were like that because they were young, out of power, not experienced, feeling helpless, more interested in looking cool than accomplishing anything (so they could get laid) ...

Note that a lot of the above is missing from the right wing nuts.

Age is not that decisive an issue, there are plenty of young gun nuts, these people have no real-life experiences outside of gun-nut fantasies, conservative talk radio and Fox News, they are big into feeling cool and macho and somehow still believe that having a gun will help them feel masculine and enhance their chances of getting laid.

And it assumes that order would be restored afterwards. If an especially nasty racial conflict broke out that way (it could happen via attacks by any group upon another, it would'd have to be white attacking black), there'd likely be a number of white victims as well and the bad blood might be enough as to be unquellable. Situations like that have engulfed even calm regions in bloodbath, often because once enough damage is done, the side that's done it feels that in order to preclude revenge attacks they have to fully ethnically cleanse the area.

And if the government is forced to crack down, impose martial law and some serious shoot-first-ask-questions-later form of order, it will just further rile up the RWNJ's as proof of what the Government has in store for all of us down the road...

Age is not that decisive an issue, there are plenty of young gun nuts, these people have no real-life experiences outside of gun-nut fantasies, conservative talk radio and Fox News, they are big into feeling cool and macho and somehow still believe that having a gun will help them feel masculine and enhance their chances of getting laid.

Yes, this. I can feel pretty optimistic about most social issues because it's pretty clear which way the tide is going. Twentysomethings don't give a shit about gays. The gun nutters, however, seem to cut across all age groups.

I'll take my chances with government tyranny in a much less armed society.

The it's not like we're living under some alternate tyranny right at the moment.

That is your problem: you are blind to the fact that America has seen itself fall under the usurpatious power of a Kenyan Islamist and his minions, whose loyalty he buys of with government handouts paid for with your hard-earned tax dollars.

Gun control plays a role in the number of firearms crimes (homicides, armed robberies, attempted murders, etc.) but so too does effective policing.

The Sullivan law and other NYC and NYS laws have prohibited certain weapons and required licensing for concealed weapons for decades. Despite this, or perhaps because of this (and that's up for debate and research to divine whether there's causation, correlation, or nothing) crime rates soared during the late 1970s and early 1980s, but dropped back to what we now see are historic lows - especially as compared on per capita basis.

The argument that gun control works is that the crime rates would have been higher still. The argument that gun control didn't play a role in this is the role of the NYPD and effective policing up to and including stop and frisk, which itself is up for research and debate on effectively reducing crime through hundreds of thousands of police stops.

It's not so simple to say that gun control did or didn't result in the low crime rates, but for those who are arrested on gun crimes in NYC, those same gun control laws help by imposing more stringent sentencing (as I've noted elsewhere on LGF today). Gun free zones serve multiple purposes, which happens to include allowing the state/municipality to impose harsher sentences on those who break the law with firearms in those areas.

That's one of the reasons that I find the cracks by Malkin and others about gun free schools so laughable. Yes, the perfect would would see gun free schools, but failing that - should a crime with a firearm be carried out in those zones, the punishments are increased significantly. After all, mass murders at schools are thankfully infrequent, but unfortunately there are too many people who bring guns into schools (show and tell, or commit other crimes with guns in these zones). The gun free zone laws impose harsher penalties as a result.

Age is not that decisive an issue, there are plenty of young gun nuts, these people have no real-life experiences outside of gun-nut fantasies, conservative talk radio and Fox News, they are big into feeling cool and macho and somehow still believe that having a gun will help them feel masculine and enhance their chances of getting laid.

That's not working out, considering how much of the gun-nut crowd is divorced, in my experience. Suspenders-wearing guys in their 50s with crumbling or broken marriages, sitting around ranting about the gub'mint... Not my kind of crowd. It gets quite boring after a while.

You can find token Democrats on gun forums now and again, but they're usually the forum whipping post. I used to wonder how they got into that position, of being a non-Republican firearms owner... Now I know.

The right wing are starting to remind me of the radicals from the 60's, all emotionalism, theater, posturing... They're like rowdies at a rally, not serious people...

Which is odd. The kids in the 60's were like that because they were young, out of power, not experienced, feeling helpless, more interested in looking cool than accomplishing anything (so they could get laid) ...

Note that a lot of the above is missing from the right wing nuts.

One of the (usually abused) moderates at PJMedia noticed the abuse the other day and said something like "Everyone is a radical now. We're all following Alinsky's 'Rules for Radicals'"

I almost answered "Except the Democrats"

You don't know much about the radicals from the 60s, do you. Another Mother for Peace? Vietnam Veterans Against the War? The Black Panthers? SNCC? They don't fit your description.

New York State Police Senior Investigator James Newell says Dawn Nguyen, of Rochester, faces a state charge of filing a falsified business record.

He says the charge is connected to the purchase of an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle and a 12-gauge shotgun that William Spengler had with him Monday when firefighters Michael Chiapperini and Tomasz Kaczowka were gunned down. Three other people were wounded before the 62-year-old Spengler killed himself.

UPDATE:

Nguyen was charged with filing a falsified business record.
Spengler apparently set the blaze to trap the firefighters, four of whom were shot before Spengler killed himself.
Nguyen's lawyer, Dave Palmiere, says his client bought the two weapons legally, and that they were stolen, the Democrat and Chronicle reported.

And if the government is forced to crack down, impose martial law and some serious shoot-first-ask-questions-later form of order, it will just further rile up the RWNJ's as proof of what the Government has in store for all of us down the road...

And it also might not get there in time. That's a defense of guns, actually: That being if some people really do go on the rampage, as happened during the LA Riots (or the earlier Rosewood Massacre). In the former instance and in one case of the latter, guns were used by people unjustly moved against to deter mob violence. The African-American man who used a rifle died, but his standing off a lynch mob saved his family; in a similar vein several Korean store owners were able to save their livelihoods and likely their lives by being able to defend themselves.

The police are treating this as though the woman sold the gunman the weapons, but the woman through her lawyer and a relative claim that the guns were stolen from the woman's car (though they can't recall or say whether a police report was ever filed on the theft).

The police are treating this as though the woman sold the gunman the weapons, but the woman through her lawyer and a relative claim that the guns were stolen from the woman's car (though they can't recall or say whether a police report was ever filed on the theft).

I fear that the only thing that will bring about any restriction of assault weapons in this country will be the sort of scene you describe: following a major natural and/or man-made disaster which paralyzes untilities and public services over a large area, we could well see very poorly regulated militias out gunning down anyone they considered suspicious (i.e. dark-skinned).

The Katrina debacle actually brought about the reverse scenario in banning, since local law enforcement (a number of whom were busy in criminal activities themselves...including a mass shooting at one point) was busy confiscating firearms without restoring public order.

The NRA successfully lead a drive in several states that forbids confiscation of private arms during or after a disaster.

Gun lovers are very quick to point out that semi-automatic weapons are nothing at all like automatic weapons. ohh nooo. But if you take your standard AR-15 and buy a sliding stock for it online, then you can learn a simple technique called bump fire.. All totally legal.

What have you been reading that gives you this impression? (I'm pretty sure it's not personal experience.)

I have to agree with WW here.....exposing my age but I grew up in the late sixties and those of us who were protesting seriously were concerned about getting drafted and our asses shot off in SE Asia far more than looking cool or getting laid.

Gun lovers are very quick to point out that semi-automatic weapons are nothing at all like automatic weapons. ohh nooo. But if you take your standard AR-15 and buy a sliding stock for it online, then you can learn a simple technique called bump fire.. All totally legal.

I have to agree with WW here.....exposing my age but I grew up in the late sixties and those of us who were protesting seriously were concerned about getting drafted and our asses shot off in SE Asia far more than looking cool or getting laid.

VVAW were often those who already got their asses shot off.

And all the ones I mentioned got things accomplished, like voting rights, ending a war, slowing down police executions. Pisses me off that stabby says they were all posers.

It's an open question whether this person was involved in an illegal gun sale, sham transaction, or had legally purchased guns stolen. The family is claiming that the guns were stolen, but so far there's no evidence that the family ever reported the thefts (so far no indication that there was a police report made).

They're claiming the guns were stolen from their car. If that's the case, they didn't do a particularly good job of securing those weapons either- a car isn't exactly a secure location (break the window, that is if the doors aren't unlocked). And law enforcement will look at that angle too - check for fingerprints and the like.

But for this person's failure to secure the weapons, this guy wouldn't have gotten his hands on the weapons that ultimately killed the two firefighters and injured several others.

It's an open question whether this person was involved in an illegal gun sale, sham transaction, or had legally purchased guns stolen. The family is claiming that the guns were stolen, but so far there's no evidence that the family ever reported the thefts (so far no indication that there was a police report made).

They're claiming the guns were stolen from their car. If that's the case, they didn't do a particularly good job of securing those weapons either- a car isn't exactly a secure location (break the window, that is if the doors aren't unlocked). And law enforcement will look at that angle too - check for fingerprints and the like.

But for this person's failure to secure the weapons, this guy wouldn't have gotten his hands on the weapons that ultimately killed the two firefighters and injured several others.

Beginning to think the trick might not be so much reclassification/banning of certain firearms so much as requiring very expensive liability insurance and/or making gun owners criminally liable if their firearms are used in the commission of a crime, even if "stolen."

I have to agree with WW here.....exposing my age but I grew up in the late sixties and those of us who were protesting seriously were concerned about getting drafted and our asses shot off in SE Asia far more than looking cool or getting laid.

above;
doubled

( I pulled #186 in my years draft lottery. They took up to #147 iirc that year)

It's just my impression of what people doing utterly useless things while striking poses must be up to.

What a crock..No offense but as a little kid they had body counts on TV every night and everybody knew someone killed or injured over the stupidest war in our history. People went to the streets to protest government actions.. Not to meet girls or strike a pose.

What a crock..No offense but as a little kid they had body counts on TV every night and everybody knew someone killed or injured over the stupidest war in our history. People went to the streets to protest government actions.. Not to meet girls or strike a pose.

Spent three months in an office in Saigon, translating walky talky transmissions that were in Russian. Left my weapon in a file cabinet and honest to God when I was withdrawn a spider had made a web in the barrel. The most danger I was ever in was trying to eat the local Nuoc Mam fish sauce.

"By this rationale, everyone who called on the video game makers, Hollywood, and others to stop making games depicting gun violence are also committing treason in crushing the First Amendment. Yes Wayne, that means you've committed treason. /wingnut logic as applied."

Excellent point. Using this rational, the religious right is also committing treason against the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause.

Personally, I do not pay attention to shouts of "treason" coming from the people who defend the Confederacy.

Beginning to think the trick might not be so much reclassification/banning of certain firearms so much as requiring very expensive liability insurance and/or making gun owners criminally liable if their firearms are used in the commission of a crime, even if "stolen."

We will make a lot of progress when politicians lose their fear of the gun lobby and realize that a majority of Americans are sick of gun violence and gun fetishism.

The police are treating this as though the woman sold the gunman the weapons, but the woman through her lawyer and a relative claim that the guns were stolen from the woman's car (though they can't recall or say whether a police report was ever filed on the theft).

Once big problem is that people don't report real gun theft and that many "thefts" are cover for straw purchases. It's difficult, thanks to the anti-ATF legislation in recent years, to detect which is which or to prosecute. I believe that failure to report a gun theft within, say, 8 hours of its discovery, needs to be a felony offense.

The police are treating this as though the woman sold the gunman the weapons, but the woman through her lawyer and a relative claim that the guns were stolen from the woman's car (though they can't recall or say whether a police report was ever filed on the theft).

Good. People need to learn to be more responsible with their firearms. If you have guns and they get stolen, and you don't immediately file a report to that effect, I have zero sympathy for you if the guns are then used in a crime and the police come knocking.

Reminds me of the Angela Davis case a little, actually... there was a hagiographical doc on her at the Toronto film fest this year, and while she's done a lot of things in her life I can admire the total lack of an explanation as to how guns purchased by her wound up being used in the Haley murder was very conspicuous by its absence.